It's a fairly well-worn topic but how can we be sure that Satan is actually evil and assured defeat when we have only a book written by his enemies.
Or what if neither God or Satan are evil but rather two parties in a cosmic civil war that we as humans are unable to make a moral judgment upon.
Is it accurate to characterize Satan as the first revolutionary?
Other urls found in this thread:
Did his wings turn from bird to bat when he fell from grace or were they always like that?
Failed revolutionary, sure.
The Biblical account doesn't make sense. Satan knew the mind of God, so he knew without possibility of error that he would lose his war and be punished horribly for it, forever. Yet he did it anyway? Something is missing from this account.
Perhaps Heaven merely justified their narrow victory afterwards by painting it as inevitable and the revolt as doomed from the beginning.
You are assuming that Satan is rational. Acting irrationally will bring you into conflict with God, and indeed not being obedient to God is irrational.
This thread would probably be better suited for /x/
You could start with the notion that the Biblical account doesn't have the war in heaven, and the book of Job clearly states that Satan works for God.
As popular as John Milton's fanfic became, it's not canon.
Asian moot, make a /rel/ containmentboard for these imbeciles already, it's getting real fuckin old.
Satan was about as evil as a child who criticizes his own father's work. If that's evil to you, you're a fucking nutjob control freak.
Hell and Satan are relatively modern constructs meant to enforce compliance with Christianity.
There is nothing fedora about this. It makes sense when viewing religious history as well as narrative evolutions in Catholicism
>research something in the bible
>given interpretations of the passage with the annotations of the original section
christ, give me the fucking passage
LITERALLY MANICHAEISM (burn the heathen)
More seriously: if we are just subservient to the whims of transcendent amoral beings (Lovecraft style), life doesn't matter anyway. Alternatively, you can submit to God's will and renounce Satan and all of his ways. Be transformed by love, overcome death, etc. etc.. Would recommend.
this
The Book of Revelation describes Satan and his angels fighting the archangel Michael and his angels in Heaven, losing, and then being cast out.
It even uses the exact phrase "And there was war in Heaven".
Granted, it's framed as a future event rather than one that has already transpired.
It's written that he fell in love with his own beauty and like a spoiled prince, he went for his fathers throne.
He became overcome with evil. Through this, he lost all rational thought.
You look at all the people that get over come with evil on the world, doing absurd things that obviously cause more harm then good.....They STILL do it.
The root of the word Satan comes from ha-satan, a Hebrew word meaning "the accuser", "opposer" and "the adversary", or as a verb, "to accuse" and "to oppose". Anyone could be described as ha satan depending on their actions. The Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures rendered the word as diabolus, from which we get the word "devil". In Christianity it is Satan, The Devil; in Islam it is Shaitan or Iblis and in Buddhism it is Mà„ra, which means "bringer of death"5. All these opposing beings promote the materialism of this world, rather than the more spiritual route of abstaining from stuff in order to obtain the next world. In other words, the primary role of Satan, in its various guises in world religions, is the rejection of spiritual wishful-thinking, and the embrace of our present real-world life. It seems that from the point of view of philosophical naturalism, Satan turns out to be the "good" guy!
did you have no knowledge of manichaeism? wow
>The Book of Revelation describes Satan and his angels fighting the archangel Michael and his angels in Heaven, losing, and then being cast out.
That's describing what's going to happen during the apocalypse you fucking retard. Might read the book again.
>It's written that he fell in love with his own beauty
[citation needed]
Respectfully
Remind me where it says this.
Ezekiel 28
But I just re-read it and I think it was meant for a human king, I think. The part that threw me off was the scripture started to reference a cherub, which I think is the hierarchy above regular angels.
In pure dualist philosophy there is no question he was the model of all the evil in the world and nothing you can say would change that
As for Christian text anything goes because he's barely in it only mostly things implied to be him.